Get activity details

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the call read-only and open-world; the description adds that results like splits and best efforts are included 'when available', signaling variable data availability. It does not describe error handling or exact units, but given annotation coverage this is sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One compact sentence with the most important information front-loaded and no filler; the sibling pointer is appended naturally.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, read-only lookup tool, the description gives the agent the resource, the content scope, the availability caveat, and how to obtain a valid ID. Without an output schema, it still conveys expected return topics adequately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter activity_id is already fully documented by the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by pointing to get_recent_activities as the source for valid IDs, which is useful but not extensive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it retrieves full details for a single Strava activity and enumerates the content (summary metrics, description, gear, splits per km, laps, best efforts), distinguishing it from athlete-level and list siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit workflow guidance by telling the agent to find activity IDs via get_recent_activities. It does not spell out exclusion rules for get_athlete_profile or get_athlete_stats, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.